Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: Implications for background and pseudo-absence data
Open accessAbstract
Most methods for modeling species distributions from occurrence records require additional data representing the range of environmental conditions in the modeled region. These data, called background or pseudo‐absence data, are usually drawn at random from the entire region, whereas occurrence collection is often spatially biased toward easily accessed areas. Since the spatial bias generally results in environmental bias, the difference between occurrence collection and background sampling may lead to inaccurate models. To correct the estimation, we propose choosing background data with the same bias as occurrence data. We investigate theoretical and practical implications of this approach. Accurate information about spatial bias is usually lacking, so explicit biased sampling of background sites may not be possible. However, it is likely that an entire target group of species observed by similar methods will share similar bias. We therefore explore the use of all occurrences within a target group as biased background data. We compare model performance using target‐group background and randomly sampled background on a comprehensive collection of data for 226 species from diverse regions of the world. We find that target‐group background improves average performance for all the modeling methods we consider, with the choice of background data having as large an effect on predictive performance as the choice of modeling method. The performance improvement due to target‐group background is greatest when there is strong bias in the target‐group presence records. Our approach applies to regression‐based modeling methods that have been adapted for use with occurrence data, such as generalized linear or additive models and boosted regression trees, and to Maxent, a probability density estimation method. We argue that increased awareness of the implications of spatial bias in surveys, and possible modeling remedies, will substantially improve predictions of species distributions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Occurrence data from collected or downloaded sources have inherent bias that decreases the overall accuracy of SDMs.
“The package then takes and manipulates the occurrence data and employs a series of measures to mitigate the inherent bias, typical of collected or downloaded occurrence data (Phillips et al., 2009; Boakes et al., 2010) and which decreases the overall accuracy of SDMs (Phillips et al., 2009; Beck et al., 2013; Varela et al., 2014).”
From Projecting future climate change impacts on the distribution of the ‘Octopus vulgaris species complex’ (2022) · cites this paper as Phillips et al., 2009
Cites
Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine
Friedman, J. H. (2001) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1013203451 · Cited by 30,731 · see citing works
Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error
Heckman, J. J. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912352 · Cited by 28,779 · see citing works
Information theory and statistical mechanics
Jaynes, E. T. (1957) · Physical Review · doi:10.1103/physrev.106.620 · Cited by 12,931 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists
Elith, J., Phillips, S. J., Hastie, T., Dudík, M., Chee, Y. E., & Yates, C. J. (2011) · Diversity and Distributions · doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00725.x · Cited by 6,699 · see citing works
Self-citationThe art of modelling range-shifting species: <i>The art of modelling range-shifting species</i>
Elith, J., Kearney, M., & Phillips, S. (2010) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.2041-210x.2010.00036.x · Cited by 2,813 · see citing works
Self-citationGlobal hotspots and correlates of emerging zoonotic diseases
Allen, T., Murray, K. A., Zambrana-Torrelio, C., Morse, S. S., Rondinini, C., Di Marco, M., Breit, N., Olival, K. J., & Daszak, P. (2017) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-017-00923-8 · Cited by 1,124 · see citing works
Varela, S., Anderson, R. P., García‐Valdés, R., & Fernández‐González, F. (2014) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00441.x · Cited by 433 · see citing works
A checklist for maximizing reproducibility of ecological niche models
Feng, X., Park, D. S., Walker, C., Peterson, A. T., Merow, C., & Papeş, M. (2019) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-019-0972-5 · Cited by 323 · see citing works
Presence-Only Geographical Priors for Fine-Grained Image Classification
Aodha, O. M., Cole, E., & Perona, P. (2019) · 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv.2019.00969 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
Mapping the spatial distribution of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus
Ding, F., Fu, J., Jiang, D., Hao, M., & Lin, G. (2018) · Acta Tropica · doi:10.1016/j.actatropica.2017.11.020 · Cited by 130 · see citing works
Environmental filtering improves ecological niche models across multiple scales
Castellanos, A. A., Huntley, J. W., Voelker, G., & Lawing, A. M. (2019) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13142 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
megaSDM: Integrating dispersal and time-step analyses into species distribution models
Shipley, B. R., Bach, R., Do, Y., Strathearn, H., McGuire, J. L., & Dilkina, B. (2022) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.05450 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Bouchet, P. J., & Meeuwig, J. J. (2015) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1890/es14-00380.1 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
New perspectives on the ecology of early domestic fowl: An interdisciplinary approach
Pitt, J., Gillingham, P. K., Maltby, M., & Stewart, J. R. (2016) · Journal of Archaeological Science · doi:10.1016/j.jas.2016.08.004 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Borges, F. O., Guerreiro, M., Santos, C. P., Paula, J. R., & Rosa, R. (2022) · Frontiers in Marine Science · doi:10.3389/fmars.2022.1018766 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
“The package then takes and manipulates the occurrence data and employs a series of measures to mitigate the inherent bias, typical of collected or downloaded occurrence data (Phillips et al., 2009; Boakes et al., 2010) and which decreases the overall accuracy of SDMs (Phillips et al.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialBotella, C., Joly, A., Bonnet, P., Munoz, F., & Monestiez, P. (2021) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13565 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
- Authors
- Phillips, S. J., Dudík, M., Elith, J., Graham, C. H., Lehmann, A., Leathwick, J., & Ferrier, S.
- Affiliations
- AT&T (United States) (US)
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Stony Brook University (US)
- University of Geneva (CH)
- National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NZ)
- Corresponding author
- Phillips, Steven J.
- Venue
- Ecological Applications
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-01
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 181-197
- ISSN
- 1051-0761 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-5582
- OpenAlex
- W2119202692
- Cited by
- 2,996
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 246 · 2025: 223 · 2024: 219 · 2023: 242 · 2022: 251 · 2021: 262 · 2020: 220 · 2019: 190 · 2018: 169 · 2017: 184 · 2016: 140 · 2015: 142 · 2014: 140 · 2013: 144 · 2012: 95
- FWCI
- 42.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Ecological Applications (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Bird Studies Canada
- Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecological Modeling › Species Distribution and Climate Change
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
- Keywords
- sample selection bias, background information, species distribution modeling, MaxEnt, boosted regression trees, generalized linear models, additive models, predictive performance
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Birds, Computer Simulation, Demography, Environmental Monitoring, Mammals, Models, Biological, Ontario, Plants, Reptiles, Bias
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review